It is time to end the confused, partial, hypocritical, destructive, and racist ban on the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District (PYLUSD). The CRT ban is confused because it fails to define its terms and address the alleged issue in a clear and coherent manner. The CRT ban is partial because the district exempted Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) courses from it. The ban is hypocritical because it tacitly affirms that CRT can be taught to a certain segment of the student population by a particular group of teachers, but other students and teachers are prohibited from doing so. It is also hypocritical because the concessions to the IB and AP programs primarily involve the financial losses that would incur should these programs withdraw from the District. It is destructive because it has created an assault on core principles of free speech and critical scholarship that caused California State University Fullerton (CSUF) to justifiably withdraw its credential candidates from training in our district. Ironically, the CRT ban itself expresses the systemic racism that supporters of the ban deny exists.
INCOHERENCE
Examining the five most relevant clauses in the CRT ban reveals the poverty of the Resolution’s language as well as the legal quagmire that results from such a poorly conceived and executed document. Here are clauses 3-7 in sequential order.
WHEREAS, Nothing in this resolution shall require any staff member to violate local, state or federal law as well as California Education Code; and
WHEREAS, This resolution has to do with how topics of race will be taught in this district, not what topics will be taught; and
WHEREAS, Critical Race Theory or other similar frameworks will not be used as a source to guide how topics related to race will be taught; and
WHEREAS, This resolution will not alter the existing content currently taught in all certified AP and IB courses so as not to jeopardize the integrity of the coursework and risk losing certification; and
WHEREAS, The Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District Board of Education affirms its commitment and expectation that teachers will rely on the Board of Education adopted curriculum as the authoritative source for the content of instruction to provide a comprehensive education; . . .
The most glaring nonsense of the District’s Resolution is in the last of the five clauses. When the resolution states that “. . . teachers will rely on the Board of Education adopted curriculum as the authoritative source for the content of instruction. . . ;” the authors appear to have been unaware of the previous clause that indicates that AP and IB have been exempted from that curriculum. In other words, there are two contradictory curriculums operating both in relation to what teachers might teach and what students might learn.
This contradiction gives rise to a host of hypothetical but very real legal absurdities that a professional educator might face. Two of our high school libraries (Yorba Linda and Valencia) carry the foundational work of CRT: Nikole Hannah-Jones’ The1619 Project: A New Origin Story. Could the Superintendent reprimand a non-IB or AP teacher for assigning readings from this book? Could a principal chastise an IB or AP teacher for presenting material covering CRT to a class outside of those programs? Might the district rebuke a librarian for suggesting The 1619 Project to an inquiring student not matriculating in the AP or IB programs? The list could go on.
THE WHAT IS THE HOW
The inherent contradiction between the two curriculums is further exacerbated by a baffling imprecision in the Resolution’s language. This imprecision results in the failure of the Resolution’s attempt to avoid charges of censorship. The resolution wants the public to try to understand the distinction between “what” is taught and “how” it is taught. This alleged distinction between the “what” and the “how” is not explained in the resolution. It would appear that a classroom teacher could teach the “what” of CRT but needs to be extremely careful in teaching the “how.” In a failed attempt to explain this distinction, the Resolution makes references to “frameworks” of instruction.
The Resolution’s authors fundamentally misunderstand the concept of a framework. Educators in the PYLUSD are prohibited from using CRT “or other similar frameworks” in addressing racial topics. The resolution does not attempt to explain what “other similar frameworks” might be included in this ban, another legal ambiguity through which a cargo ship might pass.
The core problem, though, is that ALL theories are “frameworks for understanding.” If the phrase “framework for understanding” is thus the authors’ attempt to clarify the distinction between the “what” and the “how” of the ban, it fails miserably. It is in the nature of scholarship to promulgate theories that help provide frameworks of understanding for complex phenomena such as race relations in the United States, or even gravity.
GRAVITY, TOO, IS JUST A THEORY
Yes gravity, like CRT, is a theory. And, as theories go, gravity is a pretty good one!
Even gravity, though, with its quite immutable laws, has its limits. When Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz founded the mathematical discipline of calculus, they were motivated in part by the desire to provide a mathematical explanation for the evident elliptical orbits of planets around the sun. Many theologians at that time, who did not share the scientific imaginations of Newton and Leibniz, had had difficulty coming to terms with the fact that there could be anything other than a perfect circle orbiting around heavenly bodies. The orderly Creator of these theologians’ imaginations required perfect circles. Newton and Leibniz worshiped a more complicated God who was capable of challenging overly simplistic assumptions. The Almighty always has a way of messing with our minds!
While no one would dare challenge the laws of gravity operating in the easily observable universe in which we live, the problem is that at the extremes of subatomic physics and with phenomena like Black Holes, gravitational theory becomes a little fuzzy. Still, gravity is a pretty good theory, and one would hope that its limits will not discourage the PYLUSD from continuing to offer it in science courses.
The CRT ban is thus arbitrary, irrational, and pernicious. At best, it is a solution in search of a problem. At worst, the resolution is an artifact reflecting the modern history of casuistry used by autocratic regimes. The Resolution is premised on the irrational fear that institutions like CSUF and the California Teachers Association exist to undermine the moral foundations of our nation. These are despicable lies told by people who know neither our District’s educators nor the outstanding educators at CSUF who have contributed to the wealth and well-being of Orange County over many generations. Bad rules result in arbitrary and selective enforcement.
WHY CSU FULLERTON IS JUSTIFIED IN WITHDRAWING FROM THE PYLUSD
The exemption of AP and IB courses is something that had to be negotiated with administrators of both officers of the AP and IB programs leading up to the passage of PYLUSD Resolution No. 21-12 on April 5, 2022. When at the April 2024 Board meeting Trustee Blades accused CSUF of withdrawing its student teaching candidates from the PYLUSD three months prior to the final draft of the ban, she was surely aware that both AP and IB had negotiated exemptions from the ban prior to the final Resolution.
AP and IB administrators had expressed concern that the ban would jeopardize the ability of students in those programs to access the full scope of perspectives, understandings, and historiographies that those programs require. As a result of this concern, the PYLUSD explicitly exempted the IB and AP programs from the ban. Otherwise, both of those programs would have rescinded their authorizations in a principled move that would have immediately resulted in the transfer of many thousands of students to other districts resulting in the loss of tens of millions of dollars in ADA money. Our district would have been decimated without this concession.
CSUF is the only institution involved in this fiasco that has stood on consistent moral and legal principle. They have refused to subject their student teachers to a district that bans consideration of core ideas in modern scholarship pertaining to the history and current experience of race relations in our nation. Moreover, it is important to counter the claim made by Trustee Blades in the April 16, 2024, Board Meeting: CSUF teacher candidates are not required to embrace the tenets of CRT. They are, however, required to be respectful of the scholarship that underlies it and understand the questions that it raises.
CSUF will continue to provide outstanding teachers to districts throughout Orange County, as about 75% of all teachers in Orange County go through the excellent credentialing program there. They will not, however, be providing them to the PYLUSD for the foreseeable future. This loss will reverberate throughout our district for many years.
Then President of CSUF, Framroze M. Virjee, summarized the issue powerfully in a letter to the PYLUSD Board dated January 7, 2022:
The reasons for this stance [against passing a CRT ban] are many, but as an attorney and defender of the First Amendment (especially in our public schools), I will begin with the most obvious: such a ban impedes academic freedom and epitomizes the sort of content-based censorship that flies in the face of our nation’s democracy. Proponents of this CRT ban also aim to leverage the divisiveness of what has become a lightning rod term—Critical Race Theory—to muzzle any cross-cultural teaching and social justice discussions, including those that are already embedded in our K-12 curriculum. Connecting CRT to any and all discourse about race, inequity, diversity, and inclusion is not only an obvious attempt to garner partisan support for educational gag orders (and for the ignoring of our nation’s history), but also a deliberate attack on the cross-cultural educational experiences that public academic institutions must purvey in order to replace historic institutional bias with inclusivity and care. And finally, attempts to dictate which perspectives do or do not add value to this robust exchange of ideas underscores the fundamental reason the right to free speech is enshrined in our constitution: if it is taken from one, it can be taken from all.
President Virjee further indicates in his letter that robust exposure to divergent perspectives on our nation’s history is central to the mission of CSUF to all of its students. The PYLUSD has chosen to violate the core principles of CSUF. CSUF has every right to disassociate from the PYLUSD.
THE DILEMMA FOR AP AND IB
While CSUF stands on both solid legal and moral foundations in its disaffiliation with the PYLUSD, both AP and IB have made compromises that surely do not sit well with their governing authorities. The College Board and the IB Organization are committed not just to their programs within schools and districts but also to the role of their programs in the broader educational mission of the schools and districts with which they affiliate. Like CSUF, these agencies are also committed to principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion. The fact that the PYLUSD has excluded AP and IB programs from a ban that should not exist in the first place will likely be a major concern when they consider further authorization for these programs in our district. It is a travesty that our extremist Board majority has imposed this dreadful dilemma on these outstanding scholarly institutions. AP and IB, like CSUF, would have every right to terminate their affiliation with the PYLUSD.
NOTHING CHANGES MORE THAN THE PAST
Ideologues and bureaucrats wrote the PYLUSD CRT ban without any consideration or understanding of the nature of History as a discipline. History is a dynamic field that seeks to understand the past by persistently engaging new sources, methods, and interpretive perspectives. The compilation of these various approaches to a particular topic is called historiography.
Traditional historiography might examine diplomatic correspondence between key ministers or the writings of definitive characters at the core of vital cultural institutions. Intellectual history might interpret a period through the influence of prominent thinkers of that time. More recent historiography has developed methods of engaging history from the vantage point of social groups including those written from the perspective of different racial and ethnic groups, classes, and genders. The incorporation of these perspectives has enriched our understanding of history and helped us in our quest to form a more perfect union.
Reading and understanding various perspectives on history enriches us. One can read and appreciate the brilliant analysis of the Marxist Eric Hobsbawm’s definitive four volume history of the “long 19th century” and not become a Marxist. Radical feminists challenge us to consider the pernicious role of patriarchy even if we might not draw the conclusion that an overthrow of all elements of the patriarchal order is warranted. Historians writing from a Freudian perspective have shed disturbing light on the correlation between the sexual hypocrisies and the violence of the Victorian Era. One can read those without embracing all of the tenets of Freudianism. Friedrich Hayek’s defense of capitalism is highly recommended reading for anyone looking to understand modern economic theories. Not everyone, however, will share the conclusions Hayek draws.
History is a conversation between scholars– young and old, amateur and professional–in quest of understanding the past so as to set a path for a more wholesome future. Real history is peer reviewed by trained scholars who evaluate sources, methods, and assumptions used by scholars who write it. CRT deserves to be part of that conversation. Both advocates and detractors have assessed its sources, methods, assumptions, and conclusions. It has withstood scrutiny.
Compare that to the favored history curriculum of the Christian Nationalist movement published in conjunction with the Hillsdale Academy. This curriculum, operating under the “classical education” label, attempts to minimize the structural accommodations made to slavery in our founding documents and reduces the role of Enlightenment principles in framing the nation’s identity. This curriculum has been largely ignored by the scholarly community and thoroughly panned by the scholars who have read it. These scholars have ridiculed its methods, sources, and assumptions. No one is suggesting it should be banned. Many, though, are asking why anyone would want to read it. The answer is simple: bad history it is good indoctrination into Christian Nationalism.
BLACK VOICES MATTER
Of all the perspectives on history that may enrich one’s perspective of the past, why has CRT been singled out for exclusion for consideration? Why have Black voices in general and Black female voices in particular been targeted? The questions kind of answer themselves.
History challenges every generation to look at the past to discern those parts of our foundation that are solid and those that need repair. Anyone attempting to circumvent a sober examination of the legacy of race relations in our nation is doing a disservice to future generations.
The great Nigerian writer, Chinua Achebe, properly framed the global treatment of Blacks in the age of colonialism in a way that remains relevant to this day. Citing an African proverb, he provided a metaphor for the CRT ban: “Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.” The lions have roared. We need to listen.
Etiologies 
Thanks. Well said.
LikeLike